Видео

Because it's true.

Can you clarify, given you've apparently read this book of Ghamidi's, that the Sufis understood Allah to be both with sifaat and without sifaat, like Sikhi "tauheed" does? If you don't know, Sikhi "tauheed" claims that while Waheguru is one, his nature is such that he is said to be both nirguna (without any attributes, ineffable) and, at the same time, sarguna (with attributes). Is this what Ghamidi says of any Sufi tariqah re their concept of "tauheed" (also, if you can provide a page number, that would be helpful)?

Download Javed Ahmad Ghamidi app from play store book name ' al Burhan' làst chapter 'Islam and Sufism a parallel religion and then compare Sufi concept of tuaheed and Sikh concept of tuaheed. Inshallah you will get the truth. If I am wrong kindly correct me. I'll be very thankful to you.

​@@muhammadtariq7848 I don't think any Sufi tareeqah speaks of Allah having two opposite natures coexisting at the same time: one attributeless and the other attributed! Unless you can tell me that YOU HAVE ACTUALLY READ GHAMIDI MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A SUFI SECT THAT HELD THE SAME "tauheed", as you call it, I really am not interested in wasting my time with this. It is clear for anyone who has an ounce of knowledge that Nanak's concept of God's "tauheed", as you call it, is from Hinduism, albeit minor adjustments.

@@IslamSikhism Sir, wahadat ul wahood is central theme of all the mystic religion, 'Islam and Sufism is are parralel religion' article in 'al burhan' consists only of four to five pages under three headings as tuaheed, nabuwat and qyamat, you will get the truth.

@@IslamSikhism According to wahadat ul wajood Let’s consider a Allah like a beam of light and this light is allowed to pass through a prism and we know that visible light is divided into 7 colors. Similarly according to wahadat ul wajood Allah is like a single beam of light at one side of the point and there is a point of separation that is separating this beam of light into different components and these components are the different materials in the world that we see. So according to above analogy, we can deduce that Allah is like a unit at one side of the point of separation and is divided into components on the other side of the point of separation. similar concept you can deduce from the speech of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on Sufism, ‘Islam and Sufism are two different but parralel religions'

Not hate, but care. And care enough to invite them to the truth of al-Haqq.

Care to justify that claim? How have we taken him out of context? Please; just quote him in full; then quote what we've apparently cherry-picked; and explain how we have. That should prove your point. If you can't, then shame on you for your false accusation!

How can a man who raises up arms against his own government not be a terrorist? As for Gurbani? Is the mool mantra true? There's many Sikhs who don't believe that mool mantra to be a true part of Gurbani.

@@IslamSikhism every sikk believe mool mantra to ve a part He and fellow Sikhs raised up arms against the government what will you do if your government will try to kill your community the reason behind that Sikhs have captured the national capital Delhi 18 times earlier in fights and wars and in gurbani it is written that Sikhs will rule again so the government was afraid of that so they tried to suppress every sikh activity so that they should not be the kings again but in reality Sikhs do not want to capture it they only want proper rights like other citizens they are peaceful people they do langars free eatery food for everyone irrespective of caste religion and while talking the gurbani it was written a long ago and they things have happened acc to it like it was written their before handed that the Britishers will rule India for 200 years and punjab for 100 years and many more

@@IslamSikhism Guru sahib raised weapon against the mughal government. Jesus christ was also called as terrorist by the people of that time. And he raised weapon against injustice.

@@IslamSikhism he raised his arms against his government in self defence. They had stormed the holiest place of worship for sikhs with weapons and artillery and tanks. The indian government were the only people to blame.

@@SagarSingh-zp7nd as long as you acknowledge that your Gurus were seditionists.

BarakAllaahu feek

It's not about him being right, but him lying. Where did he get these nonsensical stories from? Did he bother finding out their source? Or did he just spew this out without consideration?

Dear lovepreet kaur, ur obviously misinformed of what a Sant is, Sant Jarnail Singh ji wasnt no regular Gursikh, he was truly connected to the Divine and possessed powers u wouldnt believe. So please correct urself, Sant ji never spoke a lie in his life

@@iijaydakingll6232 Oh dear! What do you think he's doing here? Or was these fantastical stories magically told to him by some source? And if it was, how would you even know that it is the truth? Just because you believe that he's truthful doesn't make him so.

Not really! It neither addresses our arguments nor establishes truth from falsehood. Sadly, if people judge the truth by likes and dislikes, then it says a lot of the world we currently reside in.

@@IslamSikhism ruclips.net/video/D0iSpg2vzKM/видео.html

@@rajinderspeakerscornertatt9466 Thanks.

No Garry, no no no :) If you've read Guru Nanak's works in the Guru Granth Sahib, and if you know Islam, then you should know that the two are opposites (diametrically opposed). If you deny this, then either you are ignorent of Islam, ignorant of Nanak, or both?

Islam means - there's no God except Allah and hazrat muhammad is the last prophet of Allah , this is qalma & Islam connected Muhammad's name with Allah that's not fair totally wrong , and doesn't teach people about that real true god , that's why at the end guru nanak dev ji have avatar on earth after the birth of millions of peer , paigambar , saints , prophets , messengers , rsool , nabi etc..guru nanak dev ji hold bigger rank than everyone else in this kalyug 😊

​@@countrysiderjattz4216 it's not about fair. This isn't: what flavour of the month ice cream you're looking for, and if you don't find it, then it's not fair. It's about truth and falsehood. Prophet Muhammad (saw) taught a pure concept of God that's simple, logical and satisfying. Nanak taught a mentally oppressive, illogical, irrational concept of Nirgun-Sargun and said that this is God! Well, out of the two, which one is truth and which one is false? It's obvious, Muhammad's (saw)!

@El Malakh Feo sorry brother firstly u have to need some knowledge ..half knowledge is bad , guru nanak dev ji was not at all anyone's student ..they gave respect to all the prophets , saints ,peer, wali ..who come upon earth before him in every religion .. so that all world will read there guru granth sahib wHich is free from.castism but only givd the msg of humanity , guru nanak dev was not only Sikh guru., They're all worlds guru ..there rank is bigger than everyone else and much more than a prophet

@@IslamSikhism plz don't compare guru nanak dev ji with any other .. don't compare Sikhism with any other religion ...because I don't need to say that sikHism is best and the rank of guru nanak dev ji was bigger and much more than a prophet ... And don't use these words like illogical irrational ..these words should be used on ur Islam ..who says about only castism not humanity ..says only about everyone should be Muslim and faith only in Allah ..not God , who doesn't faith in Allah u can kill them ..is these teachiNgs are s teachings of prophet ? Who said ? Muhammad was prophet ? Not at all ..don't compare guru sahb with any other human ..agian

One of names Nanak gave God was Nirgun and Sargun. These have no relevance in Islam. In fact, they contradict the very reality of our Creator and make a mockery of what we ascribe as truth to Him. May Allah guide us to HIS truth; not of those invented by man.

Aameen

If you've heard Qadhi claim that, then you might have the patience to listen to a detailed response from AbdurRahman Hassan regarding the perfect compilation and preservation of the Qur'an. You might also ask Qadhi to respond to this series... if he can! ruclips.net/p/PL2dRQaGGWZOCmQU0I0kWYb-_LNxqD0qnE

We did understand. He's patently wrong in his ignorant claim.

@Asim Farhan he might be a great intellectaul, but is a great Islamic scholar? Not with ignorant claims like these.

Also if I might add, anyone who attained salvation is a Muslim in the literal sense of Muslim which means submitting to the will (Hukum) of God. The Sikhs also are encouraged not to cut their hair because we want to accept how God created humans. Another reason is the Dasam Dawar (The tenth gate) which is the tenth opening on the top of your head. You have 9 physical openings in your body and there's a 10 hidden opening on the top of your head that helps you connect to God while meditating and that's why we cover our hair and so many different traditions and religions cover their hair while praying. Again, unlike Islam, we don't believe one religion is the only that has monopoly over truth and God doesn't accept anyone else. It is all about connecting and becoming one with the Timeless being and getting salvation.

Let's put aside all this flowery speech and move to the heart of the matter shall we. Even if you believe God is above dirty and bad things, is God above what is false? Can God, for example, teach falsehood? Do you believe contradictions are true or false? If the concept of a Nirgun-Sargun Waheguru is a contradiction, would you accept that as being true or false? Surely you've read our articles on this contradictory concept. Why not spend some time trying to address our arguments directly? The above isn't really going to disprove our arguments against Waheguru, is it?

Submitting to the will of God yes, but which God? And what I mean by that question is: what concept of God, because it's obvious that the concept of Sikhism and Islam are diametric opposites. Once we can settle the issue of God's concept, only then should we start discussing gates and gardens.

@@IslamSikhism What part of my comment do you think was flowery speech? Are you saying God is teaching false hood because God can be only accepting of one religion and followers of every religion are not accepted? And yes our concepts of God are very different, the name God is used almost always from an Abrahamic view point of a God in heaven judging people on the day of judgement and sending people to heaven or hell based on what religion they followed. What do you understand by Nirgun and Sargun?

Would you like to reply?

Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah!

@@IslamSikhism brother Abu Adeeba these blind will continue to follow the darkness Astagfirullah

Care to at least point us to ONE verse. In any case, why not take the the following into consideration against your claim. If our Prophet (saw) did, as you say, start preaching about himself, then: 1) Why does his name appear only 4 times in the whole Qur'an in comparison to Jesus' whose name appears 25 times? You'd think he'd litter the Qur'an with his own name wouldn't you? 2) Why would he criticise himself as appears in Surah 'Abasa (80): "He [Prophet] frowned and turned away. Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting]. But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that perhaps he might be purified. Or be reminded and the remembrance would benefit him?"

@@IslamSikhism no brother ..Quran is written by Allah this is said by muhammad (pbuh) and muhammad sahb was the final and most loving prophet of Allah , written in Quran There not any third proof ? This is not any proof that Quran said and muhammad said .. vice versa

​@@countrysiderjattz4216 no Qur'an is not "written by Allah". The Qur'an is the uncreated speech of Allah, kalaamullah, ghayr makhluk. The words were transmitted orally via a creation of Allah called an Angel whose name was Jibreel. Prophet Muhammad (saw) orally taught his followers who memorised en masse, and then they wrote these words down. As for what you've stated, I haven't figured out how that relates to what I argued above...

@@IslamSikhism ruclips.net/video/GdmPlsstHUI/видео.html bro this is for you and bro please do not forget to comment on this video and bro please reply me back also

@@IslamSikhism yes I agree with u ..because prophet Muhammad could not even read or write ...then how they collected the whole Quran and shown in to the Arabs ...and what's the new concept in islam ? Christianity and Islam are based on ths concept of Judaism i.e one god ...and Torah , Bible , Quran are sent by the angel gibrel then why these all books are different ? And Allah is formless body less , he will only enlighten the prophets about knowledge of life by his power nothing else ....Allah is Bodyless , shapeless , formless , no one can saw him , no one can meet him , but everyone can experience him if everyone gets pure from inside ,by removing negativity and hate from mind that's the teachings of guru nanak dev ji

WHERE IS THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE? Did you see anything in that video other than "our holy text says"? Why should I take their texts, which lack any credible connection to the past re authenticity of transmission and preservation, seriously. Harpreet Singh, if someone from the Mina sect came along and put a book before you claiming that the Guru Granth Sahib is not the true Guru, are you going to accept it simply because they say so, or are you going to ask for the historical evidence regarding this book re credibility, authorship, etc.? EXACTLY!

@@IslamSikhism Did u see Muhammad breaking moon in 2 parts by finger gesture??? Where is the historical evidence apart from qur'aanD????

@@shivatyagi8319 There's eyewitness accounts transmitted through multiple chains of narration from people known to be credible in both their transmission of information and their character from 1400+ years ago which far exceeds anything that Sikhism can bring for ANY of its Janam Sakhis. Take the most popular, Bhai Bala's. Can you provide some methodology for determining the authenticity of... whoever it was, that transmitted this account? Do you have the name at least of the person, because it certainly wasn't Bhai Bala.

Still better than our beloved hindu friends whose historians like P.N.OAK has already declared “Holy kabba” to be “Shivalinga” and “Vatican” to be “Krishna Temple” and many more mythical tale. 😂😂😂🤣

As long as you acknowledge that they hunted these animals for training. Now, given that these later Gurus actually they were sachai pathsha, true kings, is it possible that they hunted for sport to further this deluded position in the face of Muslim rival kings? How can this be discounted entirely?

No they did not only kill animals to whom they wanted to grant salvation. Stop making things up again Inderjeet. You don't keep hunting falcons and hunting dogs that are used for... surprise surprise... hunting if you're going around looking for animals to grant mukhti. Are you going to suggest that the Gurus mind-controlled the falcons and dogs to kill only specific animals? The Gurus hunted because hunting was a part of the way of the kings and these Gurus considered themselves Patsha. Sadly, they weren't very sachai.

And for your kind information. You and me were also present in this world when maharaj were there manifested. Its all about the turn. I have been blessed with amrit by Maharaj. Which is a sign that one day i would definitely meet my maharaj and get salvation. But if you don't get blessed with amrit in this life then you have to take birth again .Your incarnation will be according to your deeds. Anyways enjoy your religion. Don't said a bad word against our Guru Sahib.

Well, this statement sums up your current intelligence really, doesn't it? :( Sad!

@El Malakh Feo But there is ample, irrefutable, sworn, provable, multi-attested testimony that Abu Bakr was the first khalifah as approved by ALL of the companions, including Ali. Any and ALL non-Muslim academics worth their salt, even they acknowledge this because it's historically attested to. The only ones who don't are the Shi'a, and they have to create the greatest conspiracy ever conceived for their nonsensical claims to hold any water.